Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The correct amount of ads is zero

manuelmoreale.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

421–430 of 611 posts

Re: The correct amount of ads is zero

#421

Post by thunky »

bogwog wrote: post #404
shortformblog wrote: post #265

Stances like this probably feel good to write out, but they miss the reality that when running a media business, relying on one revenue stream is dangerous. That’s why newspapers had classified ads, even though they charged a nominal fee to subscribe. People won’t pay $5 a day to subscribe to a newspaper, but the ads subsidize enough of it to make it so that a paid subscription is accessible to more people. On the in…

> miss the reality that when running a media business, relying on one revenue stream is dangerous. Why would I, as a consumer, compromise on what I want to make some MBA's life easier? That almost sounds like corporate welfare. Businesses sign up to take risks the moment they're created. A news organization doesn't need to be in business. There is nothing unjust or morally wrong with letting a business shutdown becau…

I don't think you've said anything that disagrees with GP. Of course you can vote with your wallet. And of course a company can choose to seek profit from ads.

The tension between those two forces will find a natural result. Maybe the company goes out of business and whatever the company did is no longer available to anyone. Maybe they lose half their customers but still make more money and buy themselves yachts, and their remaining customers are satisfied.

Re: The correct amount of ads is zero

#422

Post by adamtaylor_13 »

shortformblog wrote: post #265

Stances like this probably feel good to write out, but they miss the reality that when running a media business, relying on one revenue stream is dangerous. That’s why newspapers had classified ads, even though they charged a nominal fee to subscribe. People won’t pay $5 a day to subscribe to a newspaper, but the ads subsidize enough of it to make it so that a paid subscription is accessible to more people. On the in…

Reality and principles don't always align. There's a "rubber meets road" moment where you have to decide what your principles are worth. I do not believe there was any rationale behind this pricing decision. I believe it is pure greed, and you're not likely to change my mind.

I clutch my principles rather tightly, especially in cases like this. I will never pay for a streaming service whose first payment tier is "less ads", nor will I ever pay for a _newspaper_ of all things whose first premium tier is "less ads".

I don't think double-dipping is laudable, and I don't think we should encourage it. Their (in)ability to fund their business isn't my problem, frankly.

Re: The correct amount of ads is zero

#423

Post by freetinker »

shortformblog wrote: post #265

Stances like this probably feel good to write out, but they miss the reality that when running a media business, relying on one revenue stream is dangerous. That’s why newspapers had classified ads, even though they charged a nominal fee to subscribe. People won’t pay $5 a day to subscribe to a newspaper, but the ads subsidize enough of it to make it so that a paid subscription is accessible to more people. On the in…

From a UX perspective, there’s really no way to measure “fewer ads”. Customers with subscriptions aren’t doing A/B tests and feeling satisfied that they’re seeing fewer ads. They’re seeing ads. Still a subpar experience. The “fewer ads” narrative exists on some MBA/bean counter’s spreadsheet.

This should be an absolute benefit, not a relative benefit. Who’s to say the number of ads won’t ratchet up in the future? Almost surely will. Let’s say a subscription customer sees 50 ads today vs 100 a non-subscription customer sees. Tomorrow, they 2x that – sub customer sees 100 ads, non-sub customer sees 200. Does a sub customer derive smug satisfaction that they’re seeing fewer ads than a non-sub customer? How would one even know? They’re just seeing ads.

The correct amount of ads for a subscription service (from a UX perspective) is zero.

Re: The correct amount of ads is zero

#424

Post by benj111 »

paulcole wrote: post #336
eqvinox wrote: post #280

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you're missing the point. There's a reasonable number of people who are willing to pay for content like this, but only if they actually get an ad-free experience in exchange. The business decision The Verge needs to make is whether they want to try to reach these people or not, since these people won't pay for a model that still has ads. (There could of course be 2 subscription levels at different prices, one…

> There's a reasonable number of people who are willing to pay for content like this, but only if they actually get an ad-free experience in exchange. I guarantee that the majority of these zealous anti-ad people will not subscribe to an ad-free service for The Verge. For the most part, their hobby is not subscribing to online publications, it’s complaining about the subscriptions at online publications that they wou…

Even if its 1% its still worth it. You already have billing set up, you already have 2 different tiers of ads.

Its like saying most BMW drivers won't buy the top of the line model with all the options. They won't, doesn't mean its not worth offering it.

Re: The correct amount of ads is zero

#426

Post by nemomarx »

paulcole wrote: post #336
eqvinox wrote: post #280

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you're missing the point. There's a reasonable number of people who are willing to pay for content like this, but only if they actually get an ad-free experience in exchange. The business decision The Verge needs to make is whether they want to try to reach these people or not, since these people won't pay for a model that still has ads. (There could of course be 2 subscription levels at different prices, one…

> There's a reasonable number of people who are willing to pay for content like this, but only if they actually get an ad-free experience in exchange. I guarantee that the majority of these zealous anti-ad people will not subscribe to an ad-free service for The Verge. For the most part, their hobby is not subscribing to online publications, it’s complaining about the subscriptions at online publications that they wou…

but people already subscribe to ad free subscriptions at places like ars Technica, nebula, what have you. clearly it can be done and balanced, so why claim it's impossible or no one would buy it anyway?

Re: The correct amount of ads is zero

#427

Post by imzadi »

I have no issue paying for the content, but I don't want to have to give over all of my personal data to do it. I want to be able to have an experience analogous to walking into 7-11 and buying a newspaper with cash. I'm tired of everyone everywhere thinking they are entitled to my personal info because I am a consumer of their product.

Re: The correct amount of ads is zero

#428

Post by benj111 »

account42 wrote: post #204
robertlagrant wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Only if they didn't issue that as new Ts & Cs. If they just changed the service he should get his money back for an unagreed change of service.

My personal T&Cs say websites don't get to show me any ads. Websites continue to agree to those T&Cs by sending me content.

Is this a 'do not track' extension

Re: The correct amount of ads is zero

#429

Post by subjectsigma »

toxik wrote: post #362
galfarragem wrote: post #358

The correct amount of ads is one. As an indie web developer, after trying many "ad policies", I believe the sweet spot (not the revenue optimal spot!) is one ad, clear, not intrusive and highly targetted to your audience. This ad will not annoy readers and will keep your motivation at a decent level (instead of a zero ads policy). My take: https://www.slowernews.com/sponsor

1. not annoy no one 2. neg (annoy no one) 3. neg (neg exist x : annoy(x)) 4. exist x : annoy(x) 5. annoy someone

It’s almost like colloquial human language != math. Everyone understands what he means

Re: The correct amount of ads is zero

#430

Post by the_clarence »

jillesvangurp wrote: post #44

It's why I use Firefox and avoid situations where I might get exposed to annoying ads. I was watching some Amazon Prime recently (the new rings of power season). Pretty OK and completely ad free experience. Except I noticed these weird cuts every few minutes. It took me quite a while to realize that Amazon introduced ads some time ago for Amazon prime and uBlock origin was doing a great job of simply blocking them. H…

Unfortunately doesn't work on iPhone
Post reply on HN